Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to add a clarifying sentence to section 24(b). The added sentence states that the preceding sentence shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a state tort-law claim related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices.
Progressives emphasize consumer and public-health accountability
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly tailored statutory amendment that clearly preserves State-law tort claims related to pesticide or device labeling and packaging by adding a single clarifying sentence to 7 U.S.C. 136v(b).
This bill amends the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) to add a clarifying sentence to section 24(b).
The added sentence states that the preceding sentence shall not be construed to prohibit or otherwise limit a state tort-law claim related to the labeling or packaging of pesticides or devices.
In short, the bill preserves state-law tort claims concerning pesticide or device labeling and packaging.
Simple, targeted statutory clarification but touches liability and industry interests; likely to face organized opposition and procedural barriers in the Senate.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly tailored statutory amendment that clearly preserves State-law tort claims related to pesticide or device labeling and packaging by adding a single clarifying sentence to 7 U.S.C. 136v(b).
Progressives emphasize consumer and public-health accountability
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize consumer and public-health accountability
Likely supportive because it preserves private legal remedies for people harmed by pesticide labeling or packaging.
Sees the change as restoring accountability and allowing state courts to address harms that federal rules might not fully cover.
Cautiously favorable but focused on tradeoffs between accountability and legal uniformity.
Supports victims' recourse while wanting clearer rules to limit unpredictable litigation and interstate legal conflicts.
Likely opposed because it reduces preemption protections and invites more state tort litigation against pesticide makers.
Views the change as increasing regulatory and legal burdens on industry and potentially on farmers.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Simple, targeted statutory clarification but touches liability and industry interests; likely to face organized opposition and procedural barriers in the Senate.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize consumer and public-health accountability
Simple, targeted statutory clarification but touches liability and industry interests; likely to face organized opposition and procedural b…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a concise, narrowly tailored statutory amendment that clearly preserves State-law tort claims related to pesticide or device labeling and packaging by adding a sin…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.